prince_
Bronze
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2024
- Posts
- 327
- Reputation
- 313
In this community there is a constant debate which is more important and is it:
Height>Face
Face>Height
The answer isn't so straight forward and it varies depending on the case
So lets compare the different types of guys
(THIS ARE NOT THE REAL HEIGHTS OF THESE GUYS THEY ARE JUST USED AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THEIR FACE)
1)
Lets say this guy is 5"7
2)
And this guy is 6"3
The first guy has an insane face that 99% percent of people would find attractive, while Dillon is average looking but not ugly he would have appeal to some girls but not every girl like the first guy
So which one would have a better success in dating and generally in social life?
The answer is the second guy because at that height barely any girls will notice you even if you are extremely attractive
(inb4 but but Tom Cruise is 5"7) - yes but he is an actor and that gives a lot of status even with his good face if he wasn't famous he wouldn't be that successful in this day and age
That means: mid looking but very tall > insanely attractive but short
But this the first case only
1)
Cole Palmer is 6"3
2)
Johnny Depp is 5"10
The same question arises - which one would have a better success in dating and generally in social life?
Unlike the first case this time Johnny Depp would have much more success
(THIS ISN'T COUNTING THEIR STATUS FOOTBALLER/ACTOR JUST THINK OF THEM AS NORMAL GUYS)
Palmer has much better height than Depp but he is still conveniently unattractive while Depp is very attractive
Basically when you are closer to more appealing height or average height (not too short) with an insane face card you will get more girls than an unattractive guy that is tall
That means: Attractive and average height > Unattractive and great height
1)
This guy is 6"0
2)
This guy is 6"3
In this case both of them are attractive but Brad Pitt is a literal Chad and in terms of face he mogs Sam Zia
Even tho Sam is taller Brad is still at a very good height and with his face he would have more success than Sam
That means: Very Attractive and a good height > Attractive and a great height
In conclusion there isn't such thing as:
Height>Face
Face>Height
Because it is decided by averageness in both categories and it isn't just one or the other
Realistically you wouldn't be on this forum if you were both tall and attractive
You should be a good in one category and average in other to have success
For example: Good height and average face would have a lot of success but also Good face and average height would have a lot of success.
TL;DR
1) Mid looking but very tall > Very attractive but short
2) Attractive and average height > Unattractive and great height
3) Very Attractive and a good height > Attractive and a great height
You should be a good in one category and average in other to have success.
Please rep this took a lot of effort to make
Height>Face
Face>Height
The answer isn't so straight forward and it varies depending on the case
So lets compare the different types of guys
(THIS ARE NOT THE REAL HEIGHTS OF THESE GUYS THEY ARE JUST USED AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THEIR FACE)
1)
Lets say this guy is 5"7
2)
And this guy is 6"3
The first guy has an insane face that 99% percent of people would find attractive, while Dillon is average looking but not ugly he would have appeal to some girls but not every girl like the first guy
So which one would have a better success in dating and generally in social life?
The answer is the second guy because at that height barely any girls will notice you even if you are extremely attractive
(inb4 but but Tom Cruise is 5"7) - yes but he is an actor and that gives a lot of status even with his good face if he wasn't famous he wouldn't be that successful in this day and age
That means: mid looking but very tall > insanely attractive but short
But this the first case only
1)
Cole Palmer is 6"3
2)
Johnny Depp is 5"10
The same question arises - which one would have a better success in dating and generally in social life?
Unlike the first case this time Johnny Depp would have much more success
(THIS ISN'T COUNTING THEIR STATUS FOOTBALLER/ACTOR JUST THINK OF THEM AS NORMAL GUYS)
Palmer has much better height than Depp but he is still conveniently unattractive while Depp is very attractive
Basically when you are closer to more appealing height or average height (not too short) with an insane face card you will get more girls than an unattractive guy that is tall
That means: Attractive and average height > Unattractive and great height
1)
This guy is 6"0
2)
This guy is 6"3
In this case both of them are attractive but Brad Pitt is a literal Chad and in terms of face he mogs Sam Zia
Even tho Sam is taller Brad is still at a very good height and with his face he would have more success than Sam
That means: Very Attractive and a good height > Attractive and a great height
In conclusion there isn't such thing as:
Height>Face
Face>Height
Because it is decided by averageness in both categories and it isn't just one or the other
Realistically you wouldn't be on this forum if you were both tall and attractive
You should be a good in one category and average in other to have success
For example: Good height and average face would have a lot of success but also Good face and average height would have a lot of success.
TL;DR
1) Mid looking but very tall > Very attractive but short
2) Attractive and average height > Unattractive and great height
3) Very Attractive and a good height > Attractive and a great height
You should be a good in one category and average in other to have success.
Please rep this took a lot of effort to make
